Many Republicans in Congress who have also advocated cuts to the Supplemental Food Assistance Program cannot get behind the president’s plan.

The food assistance program, also known as food stamps, “provides a service that many Iowans rely on to feed themselves and their families,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “I will advocate that any change to SNAP should be done responsibly and without undermining the important purpose it serves.”

The purpose of the program, with bipartisan origins, is pretty simple: allow the poorest people living in the wealthiest country in the world to get at least something to eat. It is funded with federal money to ensure every state can address disparities in hunger and poverty.

That includes Iowa.

In fiscal year 2016, a monthly average of 398,317 Iowans received food assistance, according to a state report. The average benefit is $106 per month for an individual, or $3.50 per day, and the average recipient is a 26-year-old female. An Iowa family of three would need to take home $20,160 or less annually to qualify for help.

But a desire to help the poor is not necessarily what has saved the program from more significant cuts in the past. Federal dollars to buy food are a major source of revenue for grocers, retailers and farmers. Unlike low-income Americans, these groups do have some clout in Congress. They want people to have money to buy their products.

In Iowa, food stamps, which come in the form of reloadable debit cards, can be used at grocery stores as well as 110 farmers markets and 39 roadside stands across the state. This not only improves access to fresh food, it provides more customers for small farmers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that every $5 spent on food generates $9.20 in economic activity. Iowa collected $511 million in federal food assistance dollars last year.

Unfortunately this state also helped elect a president who is now seeking to cut funding to SNAP by more than $193 billion over 10 years by eliminating eligibility for some Americans, reducing benefits and requiring states to eventually pick up 25 percent of the cost.

Iowa would be faced with paying $884 million over a decade to make up the difference in the loss of funding, according to a report from the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

That is money this state does not have. And 27,000 residents, mostly low-income seniors and people with disabilities, would lose benefits entirely under President Trump’s proposal to eliminate a minimum monthly subsidy of $16 for small households.

While the president has displayed little empathy for the poorest Americans, he should understand how cuts to food assistance will hurt businesses and the U.S. economy.